Conservative Daily News » leftistshttp://www.conservativedailynews.com
The best conservative political news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..Sat, 28 Mar 2015 13:35:43 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1Confederate Corner with George Neat – Leftist war on everythinghttp://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/05/confederate-corner-with-george-neat-leftist-war-on-everything/
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/05/confederate-corner-with-george-neat-leftist-war-on-everything/#commentsTue, 07 May 2013 20:35:59 +0000http://www.conservativedailynews.com/?p=89120

Tonight: George will be talking about Cole Withrow (the Eagle Scout that got arrested for being responsible), terrorist teachers, and the military’s war on religion. Of course there will also be a Soldier Salute, and a “nearly-infamous” Crack Pipe Moment.

]]>http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/05/confederate-corner-with-george-neat-leftist-war-on-everything/feed/0The Interview: Terry McAuliffe & the Boston Attackhttp://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/04/the-interview-terry-mcauliffe-the-boston-attack/
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/04/the-interview-terry-mcauliffe-the-boston-attack/#commentsFri, 19 Apr 2013 01:01:46 +0000http://www.conservativedailynews.com/?p=87753This post is intended as satire, any likeness to real or imagined people is unintended. This is a work of fiction

Intimidating pressure cookers like this will be a thing of the past after Democrat Terry McAuliffe becomes Virginia governor.

(A source within the McAuliffe for Governor campaign leaked a copy of this transcript from an interview with a New York Times Sunday Magazine reporter. I felt I owed it to my readers to give them an advance look at this latest development in the Virginia governor’s race.)

NYT REPORTER: Governor McAuliffe, ha, that’s a bit premature, Mr. McAuliffe I could not help noticing at today’s media event that you were surrounded by all the genders of the rainbow, all ages and all races. And what’s more, everyone was wearing jogging clothes and actually smelled a little sweaty. Do you think the symbolism was important for your new legislative agenda?

Terry McAuliffe (D–Flim Flam) candidate for governor in Virginia: (Laughs) Well President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg had already booked the famous Boston marathoners, so we made do with local volunteers and a few of the better kept homeless. I will say we had a few problems convincing the older gentlemen to put on those tiny running shorts, but everyone was a good sport and happy to do a few laps around my indoor track to get in character for the event.

NYT: Tell us about this new legislation.

McAuliffe: It’s very simple. This is a problem and I have a government solution. After I’m sworn in, during my first hour as Virginia’s new governor I intend to introduce legislation to implement what I call common–sense pressure cooker control that all American’s can support.

NYT: How will it work?

McAuliffe: The centerpiece of the legislation is a one–per–month limit on pressure cooker sales to civilians. Purchasers will be entered into a statewide Culinary Registry where their name will be matched against previous purchases. This is a painless process for shoppers, which we will begin in upscale department stores. If their name comes up as having purchased a pressure cooker less than a month previously, they will be directed to a nice toaster oven or blender. In fact, if they are willing to give us their email address, the state will notify them when they are eligible to again purchase a pressure cooker.

NYT: The program will be limited to Bergdorf Goodman and Neiman Marcus?

McAuliffe: Certainly not. I’m aware that good value can be found at Target and something called ‘Big Lots.’ In fact, I intend to close the so–called ‘second–hand loophole.’ We will regulate sales at flea markets and thrift stores. Just because you may ‘no hablo’ doesn’t mean you should not register your purchase. I’ll give the secretary of technology six months to come up with an ‘app’ that will allow Smartphone registration in smaller stores and at garage sales.

NYT: So the legislation is just a limit on the number of purchases?

McAuliffe: No, I should have said a comprehensive, common–sense approach. There will also be a limit on the size of pressure cookers. No one really needs one of those high–capacity pressure cookers. Herbert Hoover only promised a single chicken in every pot, not an entire flock. And at our house my cook, Consuela, has never had to use a high–capacity pressure cooker. And that includes the really big fund raising events Bill Clinton attended before he became a vegan.

My kitchen experts also tell me that with the shrinking size of the American family and the distaste professional women display toward cooking, pressure cookers of 3 or possibly 4-quart capacity will be sufficient.

In addition, we also have design guidelines for cookers sold in Virginia. We want manufacturers to cut down on the number of dials and vaguely threatening controls found on some pressure cookers. In my experience newlywed cooking is frightening enough without adding an ominous pressure device to the mix.

NYT: Will this legislation have any impact on the Virginia economy?

McAuliffe: Of course I don’t want to do anything that would harm job creation. That’s one of my most popular focus group tested talking points. We certainly don’t want an Obamacare situation here. So there will be a size limit exception for commercial establishments that may require a larger–capacity cooker for their clientele. Right now homeless shelters, soup kitchens, prisons and Old Country Buffett are exempt from both size and purchase limits.

NYT: But what about existing large capacity pressure cookers that are already owned?

McAuliffe: The size of the existing pressure cooker market is nothing like that of the gun market, thank goodness. Plus there is no National Cooker Association pressuring gutless legislators. I feel that as inexperienced newlyweds burn things in pressure cookers, divorce papers are filed and just the general wear and tear of moving occur, the large capacity pressure cooker inventory will be reduced to a manageable size.

NYT: What about the public health component of your program?

McAuliffe: That’s important, too. The director of the state department of health will be encouraging pediatricians to ask their minor patients if they live in a house that contains pressure cooker and if so where is it stored. It’s important to know who has access to the cookware. We are also considering including a few questions on the amount of salt used in cooking and the presence of trans–fats.

NYT: Do you feel these common–sense regulations will remove the threat?

McAuliffe: This will certainly reduce the threat that originates in the kitchen, but at the same time, I don’t want to overlook the delivery system used in the Boston attack. I think the day of large, military–style backpacks is over. Black, camo or other assault backpacks are simply not necessary for civilian transport. When we were all still reeling from the tragedy, I was leaning toward banning backpacks entirely, but when my daughter pointed out the crucial role backpacks play in our education system, I relented.

NYT: What backpacks will be allowed in the future?

McAuliffe: We are currently writing the new regulations, but I think most backpacks that feature licensed characters or come from OshKosh B’Gosh, REI or Victoria’s Secret will be allowed, particularly if the backpack has those sexy little stringy straps. I also intend for the state patrol to conduct “backpack buy back” programs where outlawed backpack owners can turn in illegal backpacks in exchange for reusable grocery bags.

NYT: How long before Virginians can expect to see a difference?

McAuliffe: As the War on Poverty has proved, no problem that government attacks is really ever solved, but I think this is an important first step.

This puts believers at an immediate disadvantage because Christ did not spend much of his ministry discussing consumer goods. He mentions the odd cloak, fragrant ointment, sword and widow’s mite, but one would not confuse Him with Ralph Nader or other marketplace stalwarts.

Besides, since Miller picks and chooses what she believes in regard to her own faith, she has no problem distorting the Gospel in an effort to draft Jesus into Code Pink.

She begins by completely misunderstanding the significance of Jesus on the cross. Miller writes, “The Christian Lord allowed himself to be crucified rather than fight the injustice of the death sentence imposed on him.” To co–opt Mark Twain; this is an inability to distinguish between lightning and the lightning bug.

On the contrary, it was not a miscarriage of justice. The sentence was the fulfillment of divine justice. Christ willingly substituted Himself on the cross in place of a sinful mankind. God did not alter the terms of the first Covenant with Abraham. There was a price to be paid for man’s rebellion and he decided to pay it Himself. (This refusal to “evolve” on the part of the creator, should give pause to modern “Christian” leader’s attempts to revise and soften the New Testament, but it doesn’t.)

Consequently, Christ was not the earliest recruit for the left’s anti–capitol punishment movement. Christ died for our sins. He willingly paid the price we could not pay and ushered in the New Covenant.

There would be no Christians without Christ’s death on the cross. Even if the Jerusalem chapter of the Innocence Project had tried to get Him off the hook, He would have refused the offer, because to do so would have rendered His work pointless.

After that inauspicious beginning, Miller moves on to the point of her column, “How do such Christians reconcile their stalwart commitment to the Second Amendment with their belief in a gospel that preaches nonviolence?” And then she quotes Matthew 5:39 – “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

This leads me to believe Miller was also not a fan of the excellent “Machine Gun Preacher”

Then it left me wondering if I had missed a recent development on the violence front, so I did an online search on “strike AND cheek AND gunfight” to see if there had been a rash of concealed carry permit holders (CCW) lighting up people who slapped them.

That search string was a bust, so I tried “strike AND cheek AND shoot” with the same result. Evidently there is no problem with Christian gun owners initiating violence. Miller’s goal appears to involve persuading Christians to join the ranks of the defenseless. This decision, however, would not be made in a vacuum. Should a Christian head of household decide to disarm because he believes guns are inherently evil, like cigarettes or 16 oz. sodas, his decision would not affect him alone. His wife, his children and mom in the basement would all instantly become draftees in the War for Pacifism.

And the family would be misguided draftees at that. As Adam Clarke points out in his commentary on the passage, these “exhortations belong to those principally who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” Say for example, an orthodox Christian that leftists like Miller slap up the side of the head for refusing to support homosexual marriage. Following Matthew, the Christian would turn the other cheek as he said he does not approve of the homosexual lifestyle either.

The verse is most certainly not directed toward ancient or modern Christians with a desire to defend their persons or their family.

Then Miller snidely intimates that “conservative Christian leaders are not falling over themselves to proclaim in public their pro–gun theologies.” But then Miller proceeds to list various Christians who are doing just that.

She takes issue with Richard Land, a former Southern Baptist Convention official, who said during a December interview on National People’s Radio (NPR) that he supports arming teachers. And Miller concludes with David French, senior counsel for the American Center of Law and Justice, who told her “Turn the other cheek does not mean turn your wife’s cheek or turn your children’s cheek.”

Miller — who works for an organization sporting guards who check commoners before they are allowed to enter — replies, “Provocative, but unconvincing. Jesus identified with the weak, not the strong; with the victims, not the shooters (or the people with the guns).”

Wrong again. Jesus praised a Roman centurion who controlled his own sword and 90 others — for his faith, saying, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.” What’s more, Jesus reached out to the weak and the victims, but unlike leftist community organizers, He considered Himself a shepherd and the shepherd doesn’t hand the wolf a napkin as he approaches the herd.

There is another verse that’s very germane to this discussion, although Miller manages to overlook it. Luke 6:42 advises, “Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

Miller would do more to protect the innocent life of children if she would worry less about the imaginary threat of “assault weapons” in the hands of Christians and more about the real threat of “assault doctors*” who are responsible for the deaths of over 1 million innocents each year during abortions.

*Thanks to my wife, Janet, for this inspired term that aptly describes a depraved occupation.

Morgan believes if America’s guns are banned and America has gun-free zones, murders-by-gun will cease.

Can Morgan explain mass-gun murders in gun-free zones? This useless leftist cannot, so his reply to those asking this question is: “You are…unbelievably stupid!”

Morgan’s leftist stupidity spun into overload after the Newtown, Connecticut massacre. The gun-free zoned school reminds Morgan of a British school shooting that changed his mind regarding gun ownership laws: “The Sandy Hook massacre brought back such horribly vivid memories for me of Dunblane, the worst mass shooting in Britain in my lifetime.”

I have fired guns only once in my life, on a stag party…a few years ago when part of the itinerary included a trip to an indoor shooting range. For three hours, our group were let loose on everything from Magnum 45 handguns and Glock pistols, to high-powered ‘sniper’ rifles and pump-action shotguns. It was controlled, legal, safe and undeniably exciting. But it also showed me, quite demonstrably, that guns are killing machines.

“Let loose on everything for three hours?” Sounds like a lot of pent-up aggression Piers!

Notice Morgan admits those “exciting,” “high powered rifles” were safe in his hands. That’s because guns only become killing machines against people when purposely used by evil people to commit cold blooded murder. Or, in the worst case scenario for every law-abiding citizen—shooting someone in self defense.

Morgan knows full-well people determine whether or not guns become killing machines, but he is purposely exercising the First Amendment as a weapon against the Second Amendment for left-wing anti-gun propaganda.

Morgan says: “If you [Americans] don’t change your gun laws to at least try to stop this relentless tidal wave of murderous carnage, then you don’t have to worry about deporting me.”

It’s no exaggeration to say that America’s unique fondness for guns pretty much got cemented by hatred of us Brits and the War of Independence. But the main reason the more fervent gun-rights activists give is a fear of their own US federal government using its army to impinge on their freedom. The problem is that America’s historical love of guns means the country is now awash with them – and with gun death.

America’s “fondness” for guns was born out of abject abuse by British Troops: They stormed our towns and homes because the king “…erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance,” while seizing our property and people and “…protecting them [British troops], by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States… [and]…depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury [and] transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses.”

Americans were arrested at will, tried without jury, and executed without evidence.

Americans lacked basic human rights. We were controlled by a tyrant king, prohibited from protecting ourselves from British troops, governors, and the crown that owned everything. The King “…plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.”

We were forced to manufacture British goods without compensation. We were forbidden the use of those goods we manufactured for the king and country, because the King was “abolishing the free system of English laws!

Americans enacted the Second Amendment to prevent government abuse against citizen’s fundamental human rights, not “let loose on everything” and shoot up the streets as Morgan suggests when claiming America is “awash with gun death.”

Morgan is gunning against firearms while blaming the Constitution: “unfortunately ambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment is twisted to mean that anyone in America can have any firearm they want.”

The wording is clear. Anyone who can read can understand the Second Amendment: Clause One for a “well regulated militia,” Clause Two gives each citizen the “right to bear arms.”

Furthermore, Americans enacted the Second Amendment to legally own guns through written law,not anarchy! We never sought anarchy, not even war! Our Founders wrote letters for years, begging the king to allow us the basic rights of man. Something Piers Morgan takes full advantage of by living in the U.S.

Moreover, Americans are proud military supporters. Americans willingly join and fight against foreign invaders and those harming our allies. That is why the United States has an all-volunteer military.

It is always hard to design licensing systems to stop dangerous behaviors like driving automobiles, controlling the sale of hard drugs, or using guns… The basic point here is that in any gun-free environment (such as that of Virginia Tech), the assailant knows that he will not meet with any immediate armed resistance, and this puts innocent people at risk.

Morgan disagrees:

The gun-lobby logic dictates that the only way to defend against gun criminals is for everyone else to have a gun, too. Teachers, nurses, clergymen, shop assistants, cinema usherettes – everyone must be armed. To me, this is a warped, twisted logic that bears no statistical analysis and makes no sense. Do you fight drug addiction with more cocaine? Alcoholism with more Jack Daniel’s? Of course not…This gun debate is an ongoing war of verbal attrition in America – and I’m just the latest target, the advantage to the gun lobbyists being that I’m British, a breed of human being who burned down the White House in 1814 and had to be forcefully deported en masse, as no American will ever be allowed to forget – Special Relationship notwithstanding.

Using the British Troop-Card won’t work Piers. The U.K. and U.S. have been allies since WWI.

As to gun lobbyists: They do not dictate our lives and demand we all own guns. Gun ownership is free choice.

If Morgan wants to leave America, leave, but stop fictionalizing gun statistics if you insist on living off of, and under, our Bill of Rights. And do Americans a favor: Stop insinuating that we hate the British because of two wars that happened two centuries-ago.

We Americans like Brits, notwithstanding Piers Morgan, whom we should use to get even with Libya—give them Piers Morgan!

After years of denial or dismissal from the left, the mask of Hollywood has finally come off. However, it is not something that I imagine the “elite” of Tinsel Town really expected.

In interviews with what they thought to be a liberal reporter (because, come on- any “good” reporter worth sitting down with is liberal, right??) several Hollywood producers used words such as “idiots” and “medieval minds” when referring to conservatives.

In reality, all it takes is a baseball cap with a liberal college logo- Harvard- and the fact that the reporter’s last name is “Shapiro”, and you have the perfect scene for the latest expose’ of the liberal agenda.

Mr. Shapiro conducted the interviews for his book, Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV, which was just released this past Tuesday.

In reading what these executives had to say in the interviews with Mr. Shapiro, what I find more than just a little bit amusing is how in this day and age where you can find out anything about anyone with just a few keystrokes on a computer, it does not appear that very many, if any of the 39 Hollywood executives interviewed bothered to “google” the name Ben Shapiro. As Mr. Shapiro states,

“Most of them didn’t Google me. If they had, they would have realized where I am politically,” he said. “I played on their stereotypes. When I showed up for the interviews, I wore my Harvard Law baseball cap — my name is Ben Shapiro and I attended Harvard, so there’s a 98.7 percent chance I’m a liberal. Except I happen not to be.”

So it doesn’t look like the elite know so much after all!

One thing that I find quite interesting is how these people who claim to be so “tolerant” of others show their true colors! The truth is they are “tolerant” of people that have the same views as they do, but as soon as someone comes along who does not agree with their agenda they are not so tolerant after all.

Another video Shapiro will release shortly has producer-director Nicholas Meyer being asked point-blank whether conservatives are discriminated against in Hollywood. “Well, I hope so,” he answers. Meyer also admits his political agenda for “The Day After,” a TV movie he directed for ABC that was seen by 100 million people when it aired in 1983.

Wow! I’m guessing Mr. Meyer was not counting on that statement being made public!

I also find it very interesting that liberals have no problem at all pushing their agenda, yet if we conservatives- especially God-fearing, Bible believing, gun-toting conservatives just so much as breathe our beliefs or want to make a movie about our beliefs we are called bigoted, racists, extremists, and any other derogatory name they can think of.

The bottom line comes down to this: if you are a conservative with dreams of becoming a Hollywood star, you would do best to keep your mouth shut about your political beliefs or just find another dream to pursue.

Or, another idea: I say the conservatives in Hollywood ban together and revolt against this leftist agenda! In the modern age of the Internet, Netflix, and other options who needs the left? Who needs the network TV stations? And for that matter, who needs Primetime TV? There’s very little that comes out of Tinsel Town worth watching at all anymore anyway! On the rare occasion that something decent DOES come out it is canceled after half a season, or a complete season at most!

The leftist agenda has indeed taken over what is produced for TV. They have completely “dumbed down” what once was quality entertainment. Just like everything within the leftist agenda it’s been a slow process. But the slippery slope that began forty years ago has been quite successful. We are now left with “reality shows” and we call that entertainment.

I say let the leftist liberals continue their agenda on Primetime TV. Let Hollywood continue the downward spiral into the abyss they seem to crave. We conservatives can put our money- advertising funds, production funds, funds for conservative actors- whatever it takes- to create a conservative entertainment outlet. What that is I don’t know- I am a writer, not a movie or TV producer. But I know with the collective minds of the conservative movement the answer is out there!

]]>http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/06/hollywoods-mask-comes-off/feed/0Dominique Strauss-Kahn – Typical European Leftisthttp://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/05/dominique-strauss-kahn-typical-european-leftist/
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/05/dominique-strauss-kahn-typical-european-leftist/#commentsMon, 16 May 2011 04:19:01 +0000http://conservativedailynews.com/?p=10589Dominique Strauss-Kahn (a.k.a DSK and “the great seducer”) is having girl troubles .. again. The International Money Fund (IMF) leader and probable successor to current French president Nicolas Sarkozy was arrested and charged with sexually assaulting a maid in his New York City hotel room.

This is the second time “the great seducer” has been in trouble for his inability to keep things where they belong. In 2008, he was investigated for an improper relationship with a subordinate.

In the current case, the maid alleged that 62 year old DSK chased her down a hallway and pulled her into a bedroom and forced her to perform oral sex on him. She was able to break free and escape. DSK left quickly after the alleged attack. Police that arrived moments later found a room where Dominique had left his cell phone behind. DSK had supposedly called the hotel from JFK airport to reclaim his phone and police had Port Authority Police detain him

Police said that once brought in, the maid picked DSK out of a line up and he was charged with criminal sex act, attempted rape and unlawful imprisonment. Strauss-Kahn has submitted to a medical forensic examination at police request.

The facts of the case are not why is this such big news in the United States. He’s a socialist and the left is beyond upset that the only socialist that might be able to unseat Sarkozy is possibly now fallen. The Huffington Post is running an op-ed that now is trying to show that maybe DSK wasn’t socialist enough.

But even before this latest scandal broke, Strauss-Kahn didn’t seem like much of a socialist. Last week, the press caught DSK, as the local press calls him, and his wife tooling around in a borrowed $150,000 Porsche, which reinforced his image as wealthy playboy.

Those of us familiar with the true, non-Utopian version of socialist-elitism would disagree. What does socialism look like? This is what socialism looks like!

The left isn’t disappointed in his behavior, they accept the role of women as girls on-the-side and good socialist wives are complicit. Progressive socialists just can’t believe he messed up their chance to retake the French government and return France to it’s former glory as an unsustainable deficit-producing machine as the author makes the point that, “..[Sarkozy’s] deep cuts in French social benefits have led to a search for alternatives.”

As far as progressives are concerned, his lack of morality, disrespect of the woman that is his wife, and lack of respect of the rule of law are nothing to be concerned about. The HuffPo piece continues the distraction by saying that everyone should be focused on the fact that he just isn’t socialist enough.

Strauss-Kahn looks like nothing so much as a faux-left version of Sarkozy, leaving voters to feel that elites, regardless of professed party identity, serve mainly themselves, their own megalomania and tawdry materialism.

Unfortunately, the post’s author, Robert Kuttner couldn’t be more wrong. Leftist candidate’s “leaving voters to feel that elites, regardless of professed party identity, serve mainly themselves, their own megalomania and tawdry materialism” is nothing new. It is the identity of the left. Elitism is a characteristic of the entirety of the extreme left.

Nancy Pelosi’s privileged jet rides received no scorn from the American progressive media

The press practically praises Obama and Michelle for lavish vacations, constant golf outings and questionable high-profile figures coming to the White House

Charlie Rangel should be tried for tax evasion and was instead given a slap on the wrist

Maxine Waters allegedly used her influence on bank regulators to the benefit of a bank where her husband was on the board of directors

*not a exhaustive list by any means

We currently have the megalomaniac-in-chief that can’t get through an important speech without a liberal (see what I did there) spraying of the pronouns I and me. I did this, I did that, it was thanks to me..

Consumerism is not a Conservative trait. Entrepreneurship is. Nike shoes, bling, jeans no one can afford, ridiculous cars .. not bastions of the right – but that which is coveted by the left. More, more more – stuff at any cost.

The entirety of the progressive philosophy is to even the field by taking from someone perceived to be stronger and give that material to someone that is thought to be weaker. If that’s not materialistic, nothing is.

Robert Kuttner doesn’t realize, as most good little progressives don’t, that the things they have come to hate the most are their own progressive, left-wing extremists. They don’t realize it because they believe what they are told. They follow the doctrine. They ignore the facts and the behavior of their heroes – heroes like Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

]]>http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/05/dominique-strauss-kahn-typical-european-leftist/feed/0Anti G-20 Mobs Set Sights on Pittsburghhttp://www.conservativedailynews.com/2009/09/anti-g-20-mobs-set-sights-on-pittsburgh/
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2009/09/anti-g-20-mobs-set-sights-on-pittsburgh/#commentsSat, 26 Sep 2009 13:22:42 +0000http://conservativedailynews.com/?p=368Anarchists, environmental groups, and other left-wing radical groups led the way for anti-capitalism protests in Pittsburgh on Thursday.

Reasons for the march were varied. Several groups were there to enforce messages of lowering CO2 emissions. Others were protesting the situation in Burma, the fact that 20 people control the global economy, social justice, pushes for anarchy, ending hunger, stopping war, you name it.

While nowhere near as numerous as the conservative march on Washington D.C. earlier this month, it did turn violent at times. Police and protesters traded rocks, tear gas and bean bag shot as the marchers attempted to ignore police orders to discontinue the illegal march.

The news media went out of its way to ignore the more violent sections of the march and the New York Times went so far as to claim that the entire protest was peaceful with no mention of the rock-throwing, dumpster tossing thugs. UPI at least bothered to mention that some tear gas and rocks were traded.

Fox news interviewed a few protesters that said the protests were largely peaceful. When asked if they would condemn the destruction of property and attacks on police, they agreed that it was happening, but they would not call the actions wrong. The question was evaded in typical elite-speak and by turning the question around on the interviewer. They can’t condemn the illegal actions of their fellow protesters, because they agree with it and hope it continues.

When the 9-12 marchers went to D.C. predictions of violence, perhaps near militant in-nature, were going to break out. Nothing even close occurred. Exactly zero people were arrested after having done zero dollars of damage to public or private property. The conservative marchers were there out of love for their country, its constitution, and everything it represents. When the left marches, it’s to demonstrate hatred and anger for the country that gives them the right to voice that opinion. Who do we really need to fear?